Visiting MIDNIGHT, TEXAS

Article first published as MIDNIGHT, TEXAS Season 2 Set Visit on Seat42F. (many more photos available at this link)

NBC’s MIDNIGHT, TEXAS returns for a second season this Friday. If you missed season one last summer, there’s still time to catch up on all ten episodes through Hulu. Or you can just jump in when it returns. But assuming you caught the show, based on the books by Charlaine Harris (True Blood), here’s a bit of a preview for season two, cobbled together from interviews during a recent set visit.

And yes, there will be spoilers. This is a preview, after all.

Season two picks up basically where the first year left off. A hotel has opened in sleepy Midnight, founded by new characters Patience (Jaime Ray Newman, The Punisher) and Kai Lucero (Nestor Carbonell, Bates Motel). They are gypsies who have been going from town to town healing people. They’ve faced some skeptics, and they found some believers. Now they’re ready to settle down and open up a more permanent shop. And they’ve chosen Midnight as the location, an invading presence in a town still trying to settle down from the last big event.

Carbonell, whom you may recognize from Lost, and who was sought after because the new show-runners worked with him on Ringer, looked to Reiki as a way to ground the character. He says the cast is made up of the nicest people, all so welcoming and willing to take big swings, and open to trying things in new ways. He’s very happy to have joined the ensemble. Carbonell learned to trust the moment and the director on Lost, especially during his 13-day shoot (a normal episode takes about eight days) on his character’s backstory episode, which was far different than he had imagined. Now, he brings those skills and experience to MIDNIGHT, TEXAS.

The hotel itself is a sprawling, impressive, versatile set, featuring a pool in the lobby that will definitely get some use. It’s a big of a departure for sleepy, lived-in Midnight. The building is also apparently “so much worse than just being haunted; you’ll wish that was the only problem.”

The hotel isn’t the only thing new that has come to MIDNIGHT, TEXAS. With showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen having left to oversee the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot (which the cast universally insists she will ‘slay’), writer duo Eric Charmelo and Nicole Snyder (Supernatural), who worked on season one, have stepped into her shoes.

Nicole and Eric said their instructions for season two were clear: make it soapier, sexier, and scarier – essentially, like True Blood, but for network television. (Though not with the obvious move, bringing in Quinn, the weretiger character who appears in both book series. He’s still MIA this year.) With much of the material of the trilogy of books having been covered in the first two seasons, they also had a goal to set up the world for a much longer, larger, more dynamic story.

Everyone involved in the production seems to agree that they have succeeded in this. The action is more sprawling, no longer confined to Midnight, and more serialized. The cast claims the two-hour finale, which they were shooting during the set visit, and which involved a lot of night shooting, will blow your mind. Nothing has been spared.

Oh, and the great Jaime Murray (Defiance, Warehouse 13) has also come on board in an ‘integral’ role, though details about her part were not revealed.

Of course, not everything is about the new cast and sets. Fan favorite characters are well-served, too, with blossoming relationships explored and a threat coming from within, leaving you to wonder who is friend and who is foe.

Manfred (Francois Arnaud) still has to deal with the black ooze coming out of his ear at the end of season one. Plagued by “demon cancer,” he’s not quite himself as the story gets back underway. And he is beset by nightmares that aren’t just nightmares. Can he vanquish demons not just from the outside world, but from within himself, too?

At least it’ll be easy to hide the illness from his squeeze, Creek (Sarah Ramos), who is away at school, and so not around to catch him behaving badly. (Although Ramos is no longer a series lead, she will appear in season two of MIDNIGHT, TEXAS.)

Bobo (Dylan Bruce) has a few different things to contend with. For one, he’s bought the Cartoon Saloon, giving the place a Merlot’s-like feel. Second, he is enjoying his new relationship with Fiji (Parisa Fitz-Henley), his best friend.

Though, things will not necessarily go swimmingly for them. Haunted by past mistakes, Fiji has a lot about herself to figure out. Not to mention, being with her is going to endanger Bobo with a Final Destination-esque plot. So let’s hope the couple can get through that and come out the other side alive.

Perhaps a bit less dramatic is the wedded bliss of Olivia (Arielle Kebbel) and Lem (Peter Mensah). The couple has a few things to work on, such as re-decorating their shared living space into something suitable for them both, and the psychic connection they now have after Lem drank Olivia’s blood. But those aren’t deadly issues. Just fun.

Olivia has had a lot of emotional pain in her life, and this season will provide some healing. Not that she’s stopped being a badass assassin; quite the opposite. But she needs to learn how to embrace the wonderful parts of life, too, and to figure out how to be strong enough to be vulnerable.

Kebbel also promises satisfying, big resolution between Olivia and Madonna (Kellee Stewart), who was revealed to be working for Olivia’s father at the end of last season.

Then there’s Joe (Jason Lewis), whom after a millennia of hiding, is trying to figure out what his life is now. This will lead to some fresh temptations for the angel, and Joe will be forced to confront the person he was.

Which is not to say that season two of MIDNIGHT, TEXAS is backwards-looking. While the past does play into character development, it’s used to inform how the characters grow moving forward, not driving the plot as it sometimes did in season one.

It’s been said that Friday nights are a great night for genre television on the broadcast networks, and with MIDNIGHT, TEXAS moving into the regular season – albeit for a nine-episode run this fall, rather than trying to complete a full twenty-some episodes – let’s hope that stays true. The new and expanded sets look great, the story teased is intriguing, and the cast and crew seem to be having a lot of fun. I look forward to going along for the ride with them.

MIDNIGHT, TEXAS begins its second season this Friday on NBC.

Lost WRECKED

Article first published as WRECKED Review on Seat42F.

TBS’s latest sitcom, WRECKED, is nothing if not ambitious. It begins with a plane wreck on a deserted island, and then laughs ensue as the survivors get bogged down in petty things, rather than what it takes to survive. If this sounds like the comedy version of Lost, I believe that’s on purpose given the pilot’s title of “All’s Not Lost” and the appearance of the primary Jack-like hero who steps up at the beginning.

But WRECKED isn’t about to just rehash Lost. It can’t, can it? After all, Lost was a deep and complex series that had a lot of mythology. A comedy does not support that kind of structure (unless it’s Arrested Development). So while WRECKED picks at certain elements of Lost, such as the ghost of a dead father showing up to chastise his son, or lampoons a scene of a survivor trying to get a radio signal, I don’t expect it to commit to flashbacks and smoke monsters in any real way.

Still, the fact that someone is even going after Lost, a cultural icon of television no matter what you thought of its polarizing ending, is laudable. It’s one of those ideas that usually gets the low budget internet treatment, and I’m delighted to see this one make it to broadcast with actual money behind it instead. Even when the results are mixed, which does happen in the first few episodes, it still seems ambitious enough to be worth trying.

A couple of faces in the cast look familiar, but none are A-, or even B-, list stars, which may work in WRECKED’s favor. At the center are flight attendant Owen O’Connor (Zach Cregger, Guys With Kids, The Whitest Kids U’Know) and a fat (for TV) passenger lazy Owen was told to interact with, Danny Wallace (Brian Sacca, The Wolf of Wall Street). They are the odd couple who step up to lead when they’re not sitting on the sidelines making fun of their fellow survivors. And they work just fine as the focus of the show.

Along with Owen and Danny are geeky agent Pack Hara (Asif Ali, Mr. Robinson), scary survivalist Karen Cushman (Brooke Dillman, Bob’s Burgers), hippie Florence Bitterman (Jessica Lowe, Blended), Florence’s put-together doctor roommate Emma Cook (Ginger Gonzaga, Togetherness, Legit), shallow Todd Hinkle (Will Greenberg, The Grinder), Todd’s dissatisfied girlfriend who could do better Jess Kato (Ally Maki, Step Up 3D), and injured comic relief Steve Rutherford (Rhys Darby, Flight of the Conchords). It’s a pretty good ensemble, each given significant screen time and storylines, and hits just about all the archetypes one wants in such a series.

There are plenty of extras milling around in such a way that new people can be added to the group at any time, and I expect that to happen. A lot of the writing focuses on spoofing the genre, from comments such as pointing out the relative unattractiveness (for TV) of the castaways, to the way a boar is easily slaughtered. The rest goes for typical sitcom fodder, such as mistaking a golf club for a child, that seems crazily out of place under the circumstances.

WRECKED isn’t the best comedy on television; not even close. But it may be the boldest, taking a huge risk to commit whole-heartedly to such a bizarre concept. I applaud that fully, and as such, am definitely willing to give this show a chance to find its footing. The first few episodes aren’t bad overall, and each have some really clever elements to them that prove why this program should be made. I hope it gets a second season just because I believe the first one will likely be a hit-and-miss learning experience, and I am very interested to see what could happen if this is taken further.

WRECKED premieres June 14^th at 10/9c on TBS.

10 Binge-Worthy Shows

Article first published as 10 Binge-Worthy Shows on Seat42F.

The leaves are turning, the air is growing chillier, and it’s beginning to be the season where a lot of us just want to curl up on the couch and stay inside. For just such an occasion, I have a list of ten television dramas (sorry comedy fans) that would make great binge-watching projects this winter. They are not in any particular order, but all are worthy of your time.

Gilmore Girls ~ Last week, Netflix announced it was making a brand new season of Gilmore Girls! What better time to relive the seven previous years than right now? Netflix has the entire quirky, charming series ready to welcome you back to Stars Hollow. Just have some tissues ready whenever Richard Gilmore comes on screen. His presence will definitely be missed when the show returns.

The X-Files ~ Similarly, FOX is bringing back The X-Files in January. Some people say it may be a little late to tackle all nine seasons, but personally, I think it’s a challenge to accept. You’ll get all the Mulder and Scully, all the weird aliens, and all the Smoking Man. Just login to Netflix or Hulu and let the marathon begin! (And invite me over, because this is the one show on this list that I haven’t managed to get to yet, but I know it’s awesome!)

Lost ~ For my money, Lost is one of the best shows ever made. The twisty ABC drama kept fans obsessed and guessing for six years, all of which are now free for Netflix subscribers. This is definitely a series that begs for binge-watching, as so many little details dropped in one hour matter several installments later. The ending was admittedly polarizing for fans, but if you enjoy character-driven programs, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer ~ As far as rewatchability goes, Buffy is at the top of my list. The tale of the Slayer, who faces the demons and forces of darkness, never gets old. From the goofy high school days, to the uber-depressing sixth season, to the heart-breaking series finale, Buffy is great all the way through. It’s the perfect mix of humor, action, and compelling drama. And while you’re at it, stay on the Joss Whedon kick and go through Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, and Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. (On Netflix and Hulu.)

Fargo ~ Looking for a show that’s still on the air to get into? Might I recommend FX’s Fargo? Season two just began, so you can plow (sic) through the first year’s ten episodes in a weekend on Hulu, if you’re so inclined. It’s an outrageous show in the style of ‘true crime,’ with a top-notch cast that includes Martin Freeman, Oliver Platt, Kate Walsh, Colin Hanks, Keith Carradine, Allison Tolman, Key & Peele, and, surprisingly enough, Billy Bob Thornton. (Trust me, Thornton is the best you’ve ever seen him.) Whether you’ve seen the movie or not, you should definitely check out the series, which tells a different tale. And season two has a new cast and story, so you can jump in at any time.

The Wire ~ Are you tired of all your friends telling you that The Wire is the absolute best show ever made and you having no frame of reference? I was, too, but now I’m almost done with season one, and I totally get it. Last year, HBO released all five seasons of the David Simon drama in HD for the first time ever. If you already have an HBO subscription through your cable company, you can login via HBO Go to watch. If not, HBO Now is available as a stand-alone service you can sign up for directly, and if you start soon, you’ll be all ready when Game of Thrones comes back in the spring. (Or binge watch Game of Thrones on the service, too.) Simon’s excellent Treme is another great one to check out.

Justified ~ Like Westerns? FX has a doozy of one that recently came to an end in Justified. Starring Timothy Olyphant, each of the six seasons found a lawman tangling with various gangsters and locals in the underpopulated, heavily treed state of Kentucky. The first scene of the pilot will hook you right away, Olyphant’s smoldering hero radiating cool, and the ending of the show is about as perfect as any series finale I’ve ever borne witness to, with four words just as meaningful as those that famously conclude 1984. It’s all available now on Amazon Prime.

The West Wing ~ If the craziness of the current presidential election primaries are bumming you out, why not go for the ideal administration? President Bartlett saved me from my second-term-Bush woes, and I’m sure he can do the same for you, no matter which side of the aisle you fall on. With a smart, witty staff, whose dialogue is as sharp as the ideals represented, I cannot recommend it enough. Bonus points if you make it an Aaron Sorkin trilogy and take in Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip and The Newsroom as well. (I wanted to recommend Sorkin’s Sports Night, too, but it’s a comedy, and this list is only for dramas.)

Felicity ~ The original Crazy (not quite) Ex-girlfriend, Felicity is a coming-of-age drama about a girl (named Felicity, duh!) who travels across the country for a guy, and it’s available on Hulu. For four seasons, there were only a few hints of weirdness underlying the surface (the shoe box episode, Pink Power Ranger Amy Jo Johnson’s small screen return, Greg Grunberg and Ian Gomez). Then, after the series finale the writers wanted, its forced resurrection resulted in a handful of hours that push the show far outside of its genre, and give answer to the concerns of those that think Felicity ultimately chose the wrong guy. Plus, see Jennifer Garner before she was famous! (Then continue on the J.J. Abrams train and check out Alias, which features Bradley Cooper before he was famous.)

Star Trek: Deep Space 9 ~ What can I say? I’ve been a Trekkie since long before I got into television. Deep Space 9 has always been the black sheep of the franchise, never being on the air alone, trapped between more popular siblings The Next Generation and Voyager. Yet, being confined to a single locale made it different than any other Star Trek series. Seven years of religion, politics, hopeless war, and a recurring cast of dozens make this one of my favorite shows of all time, and if you missed the overlooked gem, now is the time to redeem yourself. It is available on both Netflix and Hulu.

Honorable mentions ~ The original programs made by the streaming services themselves! We’re still in the early days of high-quality, long-form shows that you can’t get in your cable package. But from Netflix’s House of Cards and Orange is the New Black, to Amazon’s Transparent and Mozart in the Jungle, to Hulu’s… well, Hulu will get there some day, there are very good shows on a variety of platforms. Scroll through the offerings on each of these, and you’re likely to come across some really neat stuff.

Made (Not) in America

Article originally published as Made (Not) in America on Blogcritics.

It seems like there’s nothing new any more. The number of old shows being rebooted has skyrocketed in the past year (Coach, The X-Files, The Muppet Show, Full House, Boy Meets World, and Twin Peaks, to name just a few). But while restarting canceled American series is the current fad, the lack of originality is not confined to this arena.

Not long before this trend, remaking foreign shows had been the rage, too. Some of the more famous examples are Homeland, which was adapted from the Israeli series Hatufim, American Idol, based on Britain’s Pop Idol, The Killing, from Denmark’s Forbrydelsen, The Office, which became The Office, and Gracepoint, a remake of Britain’s Broadchurch, which even starred the same actor. Less successful examples abound: Life On Mars, Skins, Kath & Kim, and multiple attempts at Coupling. Even the U.S. classic All in the Family can trace its roots overseas, as it owes its DNA to the UK’s Till Death Do Us Part, not to mention Sanford and Son!

Although conventional reboots tend to copy the source material pretty directly, with series of foreign origin creators often get a little more creative. Americans don’t tend to watch other countries’ broadcasts (although the rest of the world watches our shows), and those not in English acquire even smaller U.S. followings. When American shows adapt, it tends to be with an eye toward bringing the series in line with “our own sensibilities,” or whatever executives think those are this week.

This has me wondering: what if other countries did the same thing? What if Lost was reset in Scandinavia? Or 24 in the Middle East?

So, without further ado (note: yes, these play on stereotypes, and no offense is intended.)

Lost: Denmark Style ~ A bunch of strangers are thrown together on an island. They don’t know each another, and their actions are steeped in mystery. The plot is often dense and confusing. Come to think of it, with darker lighting and slightly less humor (like, say, removing Hurley), the remake would be pretty much the same as the American version.

Law & Order: UK Style ~ This police and courtroom procedural is just like the American version, except with powdered wigs and fewer episodes per season. Each week, officers of the law work together to put a common criminal away. I don’t think anyone has done yet, right? I’d better run a Google search to make sure. (Oh, and fewer guns involved!)

Grey’s Anatomy: Mexico Style ~ At a hospital, a group of unnaturally hot doctors spend more time sleeping with one another than treating patients. Some of their number die in freaky, unbelievable accidents, and others learn of unknown siblings or hidden affairs at inconvenient times. Actually, just add a filter and some more dramatic music, and they can reuse the footage from ABC.

24: Israel Style ~ A single-minded hero goes after the enemies of the state, who are portrayed as flat, one-dimensional villains. Politicians get in the way, but the writers know what the viewers really want to see is action and torture in the name of patriotism. So it would differ from our 24 because, oh, um…

Hmm. Maybe we’re not so different after all.

All kidding aside, though, there are as many differences as similarities, if not more so. When Everybody Loves Raymond was sold internationally, changes had to be made to the material in order to make the laughs translate. Can you believe that the Russian writers didn’t even understand what a restaurant booth was because they don’t have them there?

American dramas tend to sell better than comedies overseas. Everyone can understand deep emotions, laughter, tears, and romance because these are universal concepts. Humor is much more subjective, and much of what we watch contains pop culture and societal references that aren’t echoed in other lands. If you’ve ever spent any time with British sitcoms, you’ll see what I mean. You may enjoy them, but it’s pretty obvious there are layers going on that we just don’t get with our frame of reference. Or, at least most of us don’t.

Globalization has started to blur or erase these lines. Every country has internet and every country has cell phones, at least to some extent. Developed, first-world nations have similar life styles, with shared technology and products. We are becoming more homogenous overall.

And yet, I Survived A Japanese Game Show, in which citizens of the U.S. underwent crazy challenges that would seem run-of-the-mill on Asian television, didn’t play well here. Residents of a country share a history that built world views a certain way and drives interests. As much as we may think we’re shaping our national conversation, its shaping us, too. People like the familiar, and if we’ve always done one thing a certain way and some place else has done it differently, there’s a fundamental chasm that must be bridged before understanding can happen.

Why bring this up now? On recommendation, I recently checked out Smartling, a translation software company, and they have a very cool service for businesses and websites. (No, they're not paying me to say this.) Connecting with people the world over has never been more important. Even more than finding a way to translate a humorous point of view, it's vital that the customers you're communicating with understand the words you are saying. Smartling can help with this, and as we get more and more global, this is definitely the type of help we all need in order to bring our services and products to a variety of places and people. They help drive this incredibly pertinent conversation.

I look forward to international television enjoyed the world over, but we have a long way to go before we really reach that point. For now, American studios rarely even give us the chance to get used to foreign styles, preferring to just remake a solid story with a bend towards what is already popular and known in this country. I don’t think TV is the medium that will bring us together, but will be very helpful to spread artistic masterpieces once that common mindset is found.

For now, I’d just settle for BBC America airing more than a small number of British programs and more foreign networks joining my cable package. If our producers can’t find a new idea, let’s try looking else elsewhere in the world, not just for inspiration, but to actually see what other people think. I think this is the easiest path back to freshness, at least for awhile. And it would do some of us good to read a few more subtitles.

WAYWARD PINES a Murky Place

Article originally published as WAYWARD PINES Review at Seat42F.

Carla Gugino & Matt Dillon Wayward Pines

 

WAYWARD PINES, premiering this week on FOX, is the story of a Secret Service agent who, while looking into the appearance of two fellow agents, becomes trapped in a mystery-laden town. Produced by M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense) and based on the book series by Blake Crouch, it’s a dense thriller that poses far more questions than it answers, at least initially.

My first impression is that Wayward Pines is trying too hard. The pilot, “Where Paradise Is Home,” rips off the beginning of Lost; you’ll know immediately what I’m talking about when you see it. Except, instead of being set on an untethered island or trapped under a dome (like CBS’ Under The Dome, which it will compete with this summer), it takes place in the small town of Wayward Pines, Idaho – a place that is completely isolated in a valley, cut off from the rest of the world. So yeah, it’s just like those other two, at least in this one regard.

Our hero is Ethan Burke (Matt Dillon, Sunlight Jr., Wild Things), and “Where Paradise Is Home” revolves around him, telling a disjointed, nonlinear story. He’s married to a woman named Theresa (Shannyn Sossamon, Mistresses), but cheated on her with his former partner, Kate (Carla Gugino, Entourage, Watchmen), who shows up where you might not expect her. Almost immediately, he makes a connection with a bartender named Beverly (Juliette Lewis, Secrets and Lies, Christmas Vacation), so I guess perhaps hero is too strong a word. Let’s just call him the protagonist.

What does any of that have to do with the story? Well, something. There’s a Truman Show-esque twist that ties Ethan’s messy love life into the town, but to what end, I have no idea. Nor do I know why someone says Beverly isn’t really a bartender, nor why Nurse Pam (Melissa Leo, Treme, The Fighter) acts in such a sinister manner, nor why Sheriff Pope (Terrence Howard, Empire, Iron Man) won’t help, nor why Reed Diamond (Franklin & Bash, Moneyball) has been cast as a toymaker. The only thing that makes much sense is Toby Jones (Captain America) playing a psychiatrist, which seems perfectly natural.

I love dense, genre mystery shows. If you give me a solid cast and a well-thought out story, I couldn’t possibly be any happier watching television. I’m much more reticent to jump into WAYWARD PINES than others of its ilk, though. Part of it is that they are selling themselves as a “Twin Peaks-like” drama and stealing so much from other stories along the way. Now, some of that may come from the book; I haven’t read it so I don’t know. But the way the program is presented doesn’t even feel like those involved are trying to do something new.

It also concerns me to see the cast list. They’re almost universally strong performers, so that makes me think perhaps I should give the material a chance. But part of being so strong is that many of them have other jobs on currently running shows. Wayward Pines season one is announced to be only ten episodes, and presumably, subsequent seasons could be equally short to allow scheduling to work out. I just can’t see all of these people agreeing to stretch themselves so thin over any extended period of time, though.

WAYWARD PINES has a lot of good ingredients. The question will be, did the chefs take some liberty with the recipe, tossing in the unique spices that will make it a fresh and delicious dish (like Lost), or did they follow the book exactly, making something bland and derivative (like Under The Dome)? The answer to this will be what makes or breaks this show.

WAYWARD PINES premieres Thursday at 9 p.m. ET on FOX.

Formulaic Television: The Networks’ Disturbing Trend

Article first published as Formulaic Television: The Networks’ Disturbing Trend on Blogcritics.

I regularly use the terms “serial” and “procedural” when referring to the structure of scripted television shows. If you’re someone who even occasionally reads my work, you’ll know I consider one of these a dirty word. Unfortunately, looking at the current broadcast television landscape, there seems to be a disturbing trend, which spells doom for the Big Four network TV for a very long time.

First, some brief definitions. A procedural drama fits each week into it a relatively rigid structure, using a signature formula to solve a case or a mystery of some kind. It’s also known as a case-of-the-week program, and is widely used in cop and lawyer shows. (In science fiction series, it’s sometimes called “monster-of-the-week). A serial sets up a longer-running story, with a continuing narrative. If you skip an episode, you may be lost about where the plot is going. This is popular among soaps (including those pretending to be heavier dramas) and genre shows, as well as the type of high-quality fare that usually wins awards. I think you can guess which of the two I like.

I do appreciate procedurals occasionally, and they can be good–especially if they give the viewers something new. Castle and Bones are both well done, and the acting and writing teams have managed to conceal the procedural skeleton so well, a casual viewer might not even recognize they’ve being re-fed the same stuff over and over. But too often, procedurals are subject to uninspired, lazy storytelling, and they can be boringly repetitive.  And the format’s severe limitations hold it back, serving an entertainment meal too bland and of little value: the fast food of the television world.

Right now, procedurals rule the primetime schedules of the Big Four – CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. Occasionally, the networks have experimented, and some of the more successful experiments include the soapy like Grey’s Anatomy and genre hit Lost, but by and large, the the networks continue to mass produce the procedural. And they’ve suffered for it in the TV ratings game, as the Big Four have seen their numbers erode more each season.

Viewers continue to flee these broadcast networks in greater and greater numbers. Although some ratings erosion is natural (It is accepted that, as a rule, each subsequent year will have fewer viewers), the current benchmark is to avoid losing too many viewers each year to the next new thing. Forget about holding steady, let alone gaining. There are exceptions, of course, but few.

Ratings erosion is largely blamed on the number of choices currently out there, and that’s fair. With basic cable networks, including FX, USA, TNT, SyFy, MTV, AMC now producing original content along with premium networks HBO, Showtime, and Starz, and the new streaming-only kids on the block like Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix, the field is getting crowded. That’s not even mentioning the growing number of web series and YouTube shorts. There are, these days, a heck of a lot more choices for your television viewing enjoyment. 

House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men are among the series that people have gotten excited about, dominating social media, garnering critical acclaim and  awards show accolades. These series may never get the sort of conventional ratings the Big Four want (and need for advertisers), but they don’t have to please the advertisers–only the subscribers. It’s an advantage that an NCIS will never have.

The Big Four have been doubling down on their failed, losing model, and why not? Repetitive Procedurals get the most eyeballs, and NCIS, CSI, Law & Order: SVU, and Bones have been big winners for the broadcast networks in getting those important advertising dollars. However, the market for the the format may be shrinking, with younger viewers using new technology to seek out more relevant (and interesting) fare, and older viewers discovering that high-quality stuff is out there beyond the rabbit ears of broadcast.

The Walking Dead is a great example of this shift in viewing tastes. It is on basic cable, but pushes the boundaries of standard television fare. It’s gory and scary, but it also contains pathos and human emotion, with terrific character development and performances, and most importantly, the show makes you think. The Walking Dead is far from a procedural drama, yet, it gets more viewers than practically anything the Big Four are showing, and its audience grows every year. I’ve mentioned Game of Thrones, a soapy war of kings, that also achieves very high viewership (when you count the pirated copies that seem to be forever circulating). People are no longer content with just drivel.

Now, the best argument that can be made is that television networks care about money more than anything. Currently, the broadcast model gets the most out of commercials and ad sales, so they make more of the stuff that earns that immediate, direct income. However, this is not going to work over time. While there is still much struggle to monetize the way things are moving, there are subscription fees and other options, imperfect solutions, but not ineffective ones. Quality content can be charged for.

Over the next few years, this shift will continue, and the broadcast networks will fall further behind. Maybe they won’t even be relevant 20 years down the line. As the good stuff becomes more easily obtainable online and streaming to TVs, people won’t even consider checking out CBS, knowing they can find better elsewhere. When convenience reaches that tipping point, the Big Four will be left behind as a footnote of 20th Century entertainment.

Can the networks compete with all the cable and streaming fare? Sure. By taking the risk to produce the next Mad Men or The Walking Dead. Not all of network entertainment needs to be edgy and compelling, none of the cable nets air original programming every night in every slot. Let sports and reality and NCIS-style procedurals continue to pay the daily bills, but stop forcing Sleepy Hollow and Grimm to contort themselves to match some marketing VP’s model of “sure thing.”

At least, that’s my opinion. Feel free to add yours to the comments below.

Why ‘Once Upon a Time’ Is the New ‘Lost’ : Part Deux

Article first published as Why ‘Once Upon a Time’ Is the New ‘Lost’ : Part Deux on Blogcritics.

I began my Jerome-ing the TV Landscape column just about a year ago, and for my 25th column, I decided to go back and revisit the very first. Entitled Why Once Upon a Time Is the New Lost, it examines the similarities between the ABC shows, which share writers and producers. After watching last night’s Once Upon a Time mid-season finale, the parallels are even more striking, providing new fodder to muse over, without repeating the same points as before.

At the end of season three of Lost, the Oceanic Six left the island. This was a huge deal because it took many of the main characters home and turned a corner in the storytelling, focusing less on the characters’ pasts and more on the present and future. In fact, when talking about the series as a whole, this makes a very specific break, and Lost can be discussed as two separate halves that fit together nicely.

Once Upon a Time is only midway through its third year, but something very similar has happened. As the most recent episode ends, Emma (Jennifer Morrison) and Henry (Jared Gilmore) leave Storybrooke, their memories wiped, and everyone else returns to the Enchant Forest. This effectively find the characters split up and returning home, which obviously ruins the premise of the show.

“We have to go back!”

Those words, echoed repeatedly by Jack (Matthew Fox) on Lost apply. The aforementioned episode doesn’t even close out before Hook (Colin O’Donoghue) is knocking on Emma’s door, trying to tell her that the family she doesn’t remember is in danger. Emma is the Savior, as Jack was, and they have to be where the action is in order to save the day. I don’t know how Emma will get back and if that journey will be quick (it’s likely to be a great deal easier for her than it was for Jack, though both south places not on any map), but that has to be an immediate focus when the show is next on the air.

A hero’s accomplishments are not just given, they must be earned. Emma has done a few notable things, such as breaking the original curse, but she hasn’t really lived up to her power or potential yet. I do not know if this will be her moment, but it seems an opportune time, based on the tiny bit of magic we’ve seen her produce before now and her being in a unique position, outside of the Enchanted Forest, to do things those within surely cannot.

Plus, Emma’s choice between Hook and Neal (Michael Raymond-James) is eerily similar to Kate’s (Evangeline Lilly) decision of Jack or Sawyer (Josh Holloway). You could compare Emma to Jack, who had Kate or Juliet (Elizabeth Mitchell), but the swarthy, smarmy Hook is absolutely a Sawyer, so I like the first triangle better.

This entire fall run, in which a number of main characters were in Neverland instead of Storybrooke, feels like when several of the castaways went back in time and worked for the Dharma Initiative in the 1970s. They were separated from their friends, but their actions were still relevant to the normal setting. They were in an unfamiliar place, but adapted as they needed to in order to get by, biding their time until they could get home.

Of course, the daddy of all comparisons is that of daddy issues. Lost‘s Jack and Christian (John Terry) have nothing on Rumple (Robert Carlyle) and Peter Pan (Robbie Kay). There is some death and disapproval involved, but the most similar thing about both is that a father and son just can’t get along, since one show takes things to a whole other plane above the other. A plane that won’t crash like Oceanic 815 did.

Emilie de Ravin was benched twice. Granted, Lost left her out her for an entire season and Once Upon a Time just skipped most of the fall episodes, but still, she was missing and her absence was felt.

Lastly, as OUAT fans saw in the preview for the spring return, Rebecca Mader, a Lost alum, will be playing the Wicked Witch of the West. Funnily enough, Lost also contained Wizard of Oz references, with Ben (Michael Emerson) originally claiming his name was Henry Gale.

Sadly, Once Upon a Time still falls short of Lost. Even in the best of episodes, there are usually lots of places to poke holes in the writing or the continuity on OUAT. Yet, it remains an entertaining series, so should it never rise to Lost‘s lofty heights, it doesn’t shame its forefather, either.

ABC's Split Season

Article first published as ABC's Split Season on Blogcritics.

In the never-ending quest to combat ratings erosion, ABC has decided to swing big, presenting several of its one-hour dramas in split seasons this coming year. I don’t know if it’ll be successful or not, but I think fans will appreciate it.

The idea seemed to begin with Once Upon a Time. Frustrated by falling viewer numbers after off-weeks, a plan was hatched to divide the installments into two “mini-seasons” (or regular-sized seasons for a cable network), and develop Once Upon a Time in Wonderland as a limited-run filler, bridging the gap between the two, thus ensuring nearly-constant Once Upon a Time goodness streaming to our televisions from September through May.

Unfortunately (or possible fortunately), Once Upon a Time in Wonderland was deemed too good to be mere filler, and got its own berth on the fall schedule. But the plan for Once Upon a Time was preserved, as the stories had already begin to be structured with this schedule in mind, and another mid-season show will be tapped to mind the gap.

Once Upon a Time isn’t the only show getting this treatment. It has been announced that fellow popular ABC dramas Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, Nashville, and Revenge will follow suit. All of these are serial and mostly soapy, so this will fit better for their story arcs. Fans won’t have to wonder if their favorite show will air a certain week, and momentum can be built for months at a time, rather than constantly being interrupted by reruns.

This is not a new concept. ABC discovered Lost also worked better uninterrupted, splitting one season in two parts, and then doing a reduced number of episodes in one blast for the rest of the show’s run to stay cohesive. FOX also switched 24 to a straight January through May run for the last several years of that show’s life.

Given that this method worked for those two shows, it’s a little surprising it’s taken this long to try it again. Perhaps the networks thought it was something that should only be reserved for special event shows. Whatever the reason, though, doing it so widespread, with series that lots of people watch and engage with, should be a true test to the durability of the concept.

It’s also smart that ABC plans to fill the holes in the middle with new shows. For one, this should give good exposure to freshman series, with fans of established dramas tuning in to their normal time slot and possible willing to consider giving a chance to something fresh. Secondly, new fare is always preferable to reruns, a much-less-relevant idea in the age of DVRs, Hulu, and Netflix.

I don’t see this being adapted across the board, though. Television is not a one-size-fits all medium, as we’ve already seen in this new era of streaming services and internet shorts. There is a lot of room for different experimentation. And procedurals and sitcoms, which don’t typically build tension week-to-week, don’t need something like this to keep them going.

What I wonder is, will this prompt cable to try the same thing? USA already splits sixteen to twenty-episode seasons of many of its shows. And AMC presents The Walking Dead in a pair of eight-episode morsels. If ABC can deliver what basically amounts to two complete cable runs in a single year and keep quality up, AMC, FX, Showtime, HBO, and TNT might feel pressured to do the same.

The key there is quality, though. I absolutely adore Grey’s Anatomy and a couple of the others listed above, but I would not say they are as good as The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, The Newsroom, and a number of other cable offerings. Many believe that writers for the cable shows can deliver a higher bar with the extra time off, and show runners can certainly be more involved in each episode. It doesn’t matter how episodes air if they aren’t up to a certain standard.

Bottom line, there will probably be a place in the future for any kind of television show, running on any schedule, that networks care to make and viewers care to tune in for. The split-season idea is a very good one for these shows, but it won’t solve the larger issues broadcast TV faces, and it won’t help in every case. It’s just heartening to see effort put into an inventive, smart idea. We need more of this.

When Good Shows Go Bad

Article first published as When Good Shows Go Bad on Blogcritics.


NBC's The Office was once one of the most praised, funniest sitcoms on network television. Community, on the same channel, was a brilliant, creative, original show that broke all the traditional bounds of what sitcoms were capable of. FOX's House was an intelligent character study wrapped in a medical procedural. What do these all have in common? They were great shows that fell apart in the end.

Although I list House, which I still enjoyed through to the end, even if I admit I see the point many make about the creative sagging of the final couple of years, this is usually more of a sitcom problem. A show that is funny and beloved will frequently age and tarnish. I think it's something about a certain type of comedy that just begins to wear thin over time. Jokes are only good for so long, and then they stop getting a laugh out of us. If a comedy series doesn't adapt and grow with its audience, rather than deliver the same thing over and over again, it begins to wither and die.

This isn't a new phenomenon. Many criticized Friends as it approached its end, frustrated with an unrealistic Joey / Rachel romance. The Seinfeld series finale is renowned for how much it disappointed fans. But it's also not going away, as The Office and Community prove. A show that once delighted can go sour.

Perhaps it's a lack of passion. A new show runner may feel edgy and their creative juices may flow, but they can get tired after awhile of working with the same characters and premises. Or new writing staffs may come in and just not understand what makes the characters tick.

The latter is definitely true for Community. Abed used to be the linchpin that made the series work. Even in the installments that could be considered filler, his keen eye and specific viewpoint always made things rise above what seemed to be happening on the surface. Now in its fourth year, with series creator Dan Harmon ousted from the project, Abed is easily the worst character in the ensemble, and the show suffers mightily for it. It may go off the air for good this week, with no fanfare and a very unsatisfying ending.


The Office, on the other hand, is taking its victory lap. It struggled to find its way after losing the star of the show, Steve Carell, and his wonderful Michael Scott. After over a year of floundering, the team threw in the towel and began gearing up to send the characters grandly off into the sunset. It's made the show seem a little better, with the players having some direction and the plot getting movement. But it's curtain call, which, while well deserved, should have come much earlier.

A series can pull itself out of a creative rut. After several strong initial seasons, CBS's How I Met Your Mother spiraled into unfunny drivel for a few years. It clawed its way back to being good by adding emotional heft. This was present in the beginning of the show, of course, before disappearing, but now it's the bread and butter of every installment, with the drama being of a far better quality than the comedy. Even as the final push begins, as next season will be its last, all the major stories are based on pathos, not gags.

But reinvention isn't always possible. Sometimes it's better just to end things, whether the show's story gets tied up or not. NBC pulled Heroes after a fourth season cliffhanger, and ABC didn't give Brothers & Sisters its due five years in. But neither of these series were worth watching anymore, and the networks decided to cut their losses and move on. This outraged fans, but most soon forgot about it.

Maybe we'll never know exactly why our favorite shows can't remain our favorite shows forever. For every Lost and Battlestar Galactica, which maintained quality through the finish line, even with polarizing swan songs, there are plenty like The X-Files or Veronica Mars, which just never recaptured what once made them so special. I'm sorry Veronica Mars fans, I've donated to the Kickstarted campaign and am greatly looking forward to the film, but it's true that each of the three seasons was weaker than the one before it. Storytelling is a tricky thing.


I do think series tend to be better if they maintain one creative vision. Gilmore Girls and The West Wing faltered after losing their guiding person (though the latter eventually found its stride again). A single voice having control allows better consistency than a production team; ask George R.R. Martin. However, if The Walking Dead can continue to thrive, even though it is now on its fourth show runner, this can't adequately explain away the phenomenon.

Taste is not only varied, it is fickle. Catching lightening in the bottle takes a high degree of skill and luck, but to cultivate that lightening and to not let it burn out for one hundred and fifty or two hundred episodes is a very rare feat. Maybe this could be solved with shorter seasons, like the cable channels tend to do, as you'll notice I've mainly talked about programs on the broadcast networks. But systems are slow to change, and there doesn't seem to be movement on that front.

Awesome television that doesn't age well will always be a part of life, sadly. For now, I guess we just enjoy what's good while it lasts.

Why Once Upon a Time is the new Lost

 Lost was a seminal television series that changed the face of network offerings. Steeped in mystery, staffed with a large cast, questioning human nature and philosophy, the show took six years to play out, sometimes doling out the clues in tidbits, other times in waves.

When it came to an end in 2010, whether fans loved the ending or hated it, many were saddened. Why not? They devoted years of their lives watching the show, countless hours debating it with their friends, and became extremely invested in the characters. Losing such a treasure is a big blow, and not one easily recoverable. It takes a very, very special series to replace such a loss.

I believe that Once Upon a Time has the potential to be that replacement.

How can I say that, considering that the beginning of both shows are quite different? On their faces, one is a modern day tale about a group of strangers trapped on an island, while the other involves fairy tale characters traversing world and possessing magic. And yet, there is so much the two have in common. While Once Upon a Time fervor may not yet have hit Lost heights, it still can, especially if it continues to travel the same path, and as more viewers discover it online and on disc.

Some of these similarities are obvious. Both shows air(ed) on ABC. They share producers Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis. Both count Emilie de Ravin among their stars and Alan Dale as a recurring, but vital, player. One of the most beloved actors from Lost, Jorge Garcia, recently guest starred on Once Upon a Time. Both delight in surprising the fans, making quick turns that change the game.

But it goes deeper than that, by far. For one thing, both deal with differing personalities within the same person, and how these people present themselves to the world. When we meet John Locke (Terry O'Quinn) on the island, he seems confident and sure of himself, not afraid to take a leadership position. Then we learn his back story, and see what has led him to this moment, discovering he was once a very different person, but is now embracing the new Locke. Yet, he is still not done growing. Similarly, Regina (Lana Parrilla) is an evil Mayor / Queen, who has a past that has changed her into this person, which she embraces. Until she doesn't.

Both shows have very complicated characters that look a little odd, and may or may not be bad, but are played by such fantastic actors that the audience cannot get enough of them. I refer, of course, to Ben Linus (Michael Emerson) and Rumplestiltskin (Robert Carlyle). Do we root for them? More than we'd like to, sometimes. They have done detestable things, and deserve to be reviled. But any excuse to see them on screen is a good one, and when exposing their vulnerabilities, they are at their best.

Both shows feature different worlds. On Lost, this was a little less obvious, but the present day mainland is quite different from the island locale, and, in turn, the 1970s Dharma compound, in which several characters from this millennium spend some time. On Once Upon a Time, they've gone the more literal route, presenting Storybrooke, fairy tale land, Wonderland, and even a black and white horror realm. Each of these places has different rules and different players that familiar characters must navigate and interact with. But Storybrooke might as well be an island, isolated from the rest of the world, and obeying different laws of nature.

Both shows like to begin a season with a new setting and character, startling the audience, and making the series feel fresh. Desmond's (Henry Ian Cusick) introduction in the hatch is one of Lost's most memorable moments, making an impression that still amazes to this day. Meeting Neal (Michael Raymond-James) at the start of season two of Once Upon a Time feels like it is exactly in the vein.

Both shows have a huge supporting cast of characters, some of which appear often, and some only pop up from time to time. These characters can be connectors, tying central players together in unexpected ways, or they may arrive to teach a lesson, or begin a quest, or fall in love, or they may just be interesting side stories. Everyone has their favorites (Nestor Carbonell's Richard, or Jessy Schram's Cinderella, or Amy Acker's Astrid, or Katey Sagal's Helen, or Sonya Walger's Penny), but there is no telling how often they may appear, or what importance they will or will not hold.

Both shows have an annoying kid, and benefit when he is featured less. I'm sorry, even though Henry (Jared S. Gilmore) can be a decent addition to certain episodes, he is also a drag on plenty of others. Lost kind of has a similar problem with Walt (Malcolm David Kelley), whom they promptly have kidnapped, and then send home. This wouldn't work with Henry, as Emma (Jennifer Morrison) would become just as obsessed with finding her son as Michael (Harold Perrineau) does, which would ruin her character on the show, and she isn't as expendable. Walt still appears from time to time throughout Lost, and it he ends up furthering the plot and becomes not as grating over time. But less is more with many child actors, and the writers would do well to remember that.

Both shows feature a flawed savior. Everyone believes in Jack (Matthew Fox) most of the time, but he isn't always capable of making the best decisions. He is reluctant to assume the leadership role, but it is something he naturally falls back on because he wants to save everyone. He also has made mistakes in the past. Emma is like Jack, trying to be a good person and do the right thing, despite what she may have previously done, and she has the ability to be a protector, unlike most other characters.

Both shows are willing to execute major characters, or send them away, leaving room to inject new blood, or expand a smaller role. Lost did this repeatedly, with some of the casualties including Boone (Ian Somerhalder), Charlie (Dominic Monaghan), and Libby (Cynthia Watros). Once Upon a Time, not quite halfway through season two, has already killed off Sheriff Graham (Jamie Dornan), had August (Eion Bailey) go missing, demoted Jiminey (Raphael Sbarge), and promoted Belle (de Ravin) and Ruby (Meghan Ory). But as any good Lost fan knows, characters can return at any time in the most unexpected places, so I wouldn't count out any of these people yet. Not even the deceased Sheriff Graham, because...

Both shows feature flashbacks heavily, and often. Everyone knows that a good way to learn about a character is to explore their past. But most television shows use this element sparingly. Lost and Once Upon a Time build entire episodes around such back stories, making them significant chunks of the episodes on a weekly basis, and tying the past to the present. When done right, it's clever and entertaining.

Mysteries abound. Why can't the Storybrooke residents leave their town? How can the island move? Where is Rumple's son? What is the sideways universe? Who is Dr. Whale (David Anders)? How did polar bears get on the island? Some of these questions are answered quickly, others take a longer period of time. Some things will never fully be explained. But always keeping questions coming, never telling the full story, keeps the show energized, and brings fans back week after week.

Plus, they both like smoke (purple or black, it doesn't matter) a whole lot.

Will Once Upon a Time catch the wonderment and following that Lost possessed at its height? Does that really matter, as long as it is allowed to run for years, and play out a sprawling, intricate story? The point is, if you are a Lost-ie looking for something to fill that hole in your life and you haven't given Once Upon a Time a chance yet (past the first few, admittedly poor, episodes), you are missing out. They may seem like very different series, but they have major similarities that should definitely appeal to the same types of people.

Did I miss anything? The answer is most definitely (SPOILER ALERT!) yes. Feel free to weigh in on the comments below.


Jerome Wetzel has been reviewing television shows for years now. However, not every thought can be contained in an article about a single episode, and sometimes it's fun to look at the bigger picture. Join him each week in this wandering essay column as he ponders trends and genres, giving you his insights and opinions into the current state of television.

Want to read some of my fiction? It's on my website, JeromeWetzel.com! Also, for the latest updates and article links, as well as commentary on episodes I don't fully review, please follow me on Twitter!

Article first published as Why Once Upon a Time Is the New Lost on Blogcritics.

An Interview with Suits' Patrick J. Adams

Patrick J. Adams plays Mike Ross in USA's Suits, a sort-of legal drama, that is far more about the characters than the cases. One of the two real leads of the first season, though season two is moving more towards an ensemble series, Mike is a brilliant young man, who hasn't caught a break. Until now.

In season one, Mike is chosen to be the mentee of expert attorney Harvey Specter, even though Mike doesn't have a law degree. This is everything Mike has dreamed of, and he struggles to keep his secret, as well as balance his new romantic life with his professional one. But as season two begins, Jessica, the boss, knows Mike's secret, which could cost Mike everything.

The series is undergoing a change, moving away from a procedural formula, that wasn't heavy in season one, but was present. Instead, the focus is morality and relationships, playing with the interactions between several distinct personalities in a particular situation. The plots carry over from week to week, and while the tone is relatively light, there will be times when one really questions the shades of grey characters choose to dwell in.

During a recent visit to the set of Suits, arranged for Internet journalists by USA, we as a group sat down with Adams to chat with him about the role that he plays, and what is in store for Mike in season two.

Similar to his character in attitude and genuine niceness, Patrick ends up staying for more than 30 minutes, just talking, before offering us a tour of the set.

Patrick has plenty of spoilers to offer on Mike's upcoming storyline. Season two will delve deeper into Mike's personal life, giving more screen time to his relationship with his grandmother, the only family figure in Mike's daily life. Might he even bring a girl home to meet her? Who knows, since Patrick promises a clearer romantic story for the character.

Speaking of Mike's love life, will he be hooking up with Rachel anytime soon? Well, Patrick is adamant that the timing must be right. Both have their careers to worry about, and they don't want to make any more mistakes. Which sounds like a yes to me, even if the characters start out taking things slow!

The biggest obstacle in their love story is Mike's secret. Not only will this affect his job as a lawyer, but this is a huge thing that he cannot tell Rachel. Surely, she will find out eventually, and she will be furious to learn he has been lying to her this entire time. But it's way too dangerous to let her in now, and until Mike is ready to take a chance on really trusting her with it, there will always be a cloud hanging over the pair.

Along those lines, the big question dogging Mike is how he will fit in at the firm now, with the boss clued in on his secret. Lucky for him, Harvey is willing to go out on a limb to keep Mike on board. And with new developments, involving a character from the past, unseen by viewers yet, returning to the fold, Mike will actually be protected not just by Harvey, but by Jessica, too. Jessica isn't happy to have Mike on board, but at this point, she has to keep him there. Suddenly, it's integral that both of these people keep his secret. So while he may pay the price on a personal level, he doesn't need to be out job hunting quite yet.

Since Jessica and Harvey will be distracted with this new issue, Patrick promises we will see more of Mike as an associate. After all, Mike is too new to be involved with the struggle for control of the firm, and with his mentor busy, he will have more time for his peers, as well as cases. Fans will actually get to see Mike growing into a capable lawyer. Too bad there's an expiration date on this scenario!

This plot will have Mike wrestling with morality, as viewers will see right away in the season premiere. Being a good person and doing a great job as a lawyer don't always sync up, priority-wise. Look for Mike to try to find his balance, wanting to do both well, and finding it more difficult than he expected.

Mike won't just be spending time in the bullpen and courtroom, though. He still owes Louis (Rick Hoffman) from the bet that they made in season one. Consequently, look for Mike to be spending more time as Louis' whipping boy, a delightful turn of events, considering just how entertaining Louis is as a character, even if Mike won't like it. As Patrick says, "Louis is insanely… insane, and insanely talented."

One might think, considering that Mike's old friend Trevor spills his secret to Jessica, Mike and Trevor will be done. Patrick says that this is not the case, and explains why. See, Mike is in a totally new environment now, but Trevor is his friend from his former life. They were very close, and Trevor is a connection to keep Mike grounded, reminding him where he comes from. No matter what has happened between them, there is still some lingering friendship there. Which does not mean that all will be forgiven, or that Trevor won't continue to be bad news for Mike. It just makes it hard for Mike to let go.

Want more? Patrick says the Mike/Trevor relationship will come to a head in the third episode of the season.

Contrasting with Trevor is Mike's new friend, Harvey. Yes, Patrick thinks they are friends, or getting to be, anyway. Harvey is still in a position of power, but their relationship will change to one of mutual respect. Harvey is really standing up for Mike, and this will deepen their personal feelings for each other. It is not a strictly professional relationship.

Suits has never been black and white, but season two will bring this more into focus as a theme. No character in the series is right or wrong, and shades of grey rule the day. Even the new guy, who could ruin everything for the main characters, isn't completely evil or sweet. This kind of thing is incredibly interesting for an audience, with unexpected twists cropping up at any time, and making characters' decisions hard to predict.

Patrick also says that Suits is no longer a two-man show. For much of season one, Mike and Harvey are at the forefront. In season two, the lead is more divided among the six-performer ensemble. Not that Patrick is complaining about having less to do. After all, he really seems to like his co-stars, and is glad to be part of such a talented cast. These statements come across as very sincere, and unless he's using his considerable acting charms on us, Patrick is pleased with the new arrangement, happy for his friends.

One more teaser? Patrick ponders if Louis and Jessica might be the show's next 'It' couple. I think he's joking. Hopefully.

The discussion turns to Patrick. How is he like Mike? Well, the actor freely admits he is terrible at impressions, something played up in Mike for comedic effect. The season two premiere will have a wonderful moment with him mangling a very famous "Karen!" But like Mike, Patrick is a cinema nerd. He gets the references, even if he can't do them. Patrick dirty secret? Even though Mike berates someone for not having seen Casablanca, Patrick himself has not seen the film.

Patrick feels a kinship with Mike because they are both working very hard, just trying to do their best, surrounded by very talented people. This is where Patrick's humbleness really shows itself, and he comes across as earnest and likeable, like Mike. There doesn't seem to be a big gap between the character and the performer. This will come up for Mike on Suits in a dramatic way, but hopefully Patrick won't face a similar pressure.

Patrick is also a nerd. He references both Lost and Star Trek in the course of the interview. This is the best kind of geek, of course, but it might be surprising to learn that an actor who seems so cool enjoys the dorkier things in life.

Time is up. We need to let a weary Patrick get his rest. He has been candid and conversational, a fountain of knowledge. The very natural ease with which he interacts, even under these conditions, is impressive. He deserves a break.

Thank you Patrick for taking the time to talk with us! Hopefully, it was as enjoyable for you as it was for those of us so excited to be with you on set!

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter! Article first published as An Interview with Suits' Patrick J. Adams on Blogcritics.

At The River's end

ABC's The River brings its eight episode freshman run to a close this week. The series follows Tess Cole (Leslie Hope, The Mentalist, 24) and her adult son, Lincoln (Joe Anderson, Across the Universe), as they set off into the Amazon, trailed by a camera crew and old friends, to find Tess's missing husband, TV personality Dr. Emmet Cole (Bruce Greenwood, Star Trek, John from Cincinnati, Knots Landing). But the jungle is haunted by a dark spirit, and they path they follow is an arduous one.

Seven episodes in, they find Emmet Cole, alive and well. So the eighth episode, "Row, Row, Row Your Boat," is just the characters sailing happily home, right? Of course not. The demon of the river is not ready to let them go just yet. It gains entrance onto the boat when jilted cameraman Jonas (Scott Michael Foster, Greek, Californication) shoots at Emmet, but kills Lincoln instead. Grief stricken, Tess asks Jahel (Paulina Gaitan, Trade) to bring Lincoln back, but the evil one comes with Lincoln, possessing his body. 

The River hits many of the right notes for a horror series, cycling through a lot of different tropes of the genre. There is a supernatural element, of course. Mixed in are some generic spooky scenes, exorcism rituals, and slasher bits. There's also a little bit of mystery and mythology included for good measure. Because this is network TV, there isn't a ton of sex, something many horror films use, but there is plenty of blood and violence.

The River is not as good as FX's American Horror Story. The performers aren't as talented, the plot has holes from time to time, and certain situations seem set up just to build suspense, rather than further the story. But it's a decent series for network television, and, if allowed time to grow, could become something great. There isn't a lot of the horror category currently on broadcast television, so any attempt has to be given some credit, and this one is a serviceable effort.

There are also some similarities between The River and Lost. Again, The River is a far inferior series, so they should not be held up together, as that doesn't do this new show any favors. But some of the mystery and back story, as well as flashbacks and tone, contribute to the comparison. Not to mention both shows share a network.

As The River brings season one to a close, the crew is almost home free, demon banished, but then, in a very Lost-like moment, the streams begin to rearrange themselves. Had this not happened, the eight-episode run would serve as a relatively complete, enjoyable mini-series. Since the creative team choose such a cliffhanger, the show is begging to be brought back next year. There are plenty more stories to be told about these characters, so why not give them another chance?

The River deserves another season. While not a work of genius, it's pretty exciting, and original enough to merit more installments. Should it be renewed, The River will return to ABC next year.

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter!

Terra Nova responds to "Occupation" with "Resistance"

     To end the freshman run of Terra Nova, FOX presents "Occupation" and "Resistance" last night. Lucas Taylor (Ashley Zukerman) leads some greedy miners into the past, and they take control of Terra Nova. When Jim (Jason O'Mara), who is injured in the initial confrontation, wakes up, he seeks a way to communicate with Commander Taylor (Stephen Lang), who is outside the walls of the settlement with a handful of soldiers. Together, they plot to stop their conquerers. Jim travels back to the future, and gets home just before destroying the portal. Then, mysteriously, the bad guys pack up and go, heading into the Badlands where the bow of an old sailing ship is discovered.

     "Occupation" and "Resistance" call to mind other TV shows and movies pretty heavily. There's an Avatar-esque battle with a company who just wants to make a profit (though Lang is now on the right side). When the characters gaze at pretty dinosaurs, who Lucas casually murders, the parallel is even stronger. There's also an aspect of Lost, in the mystery of the sailing ship, and some of the musical score plays up this well. It's a smart move for Terra Nova, given that Avatar did well in theaters, and Lost is one of the greatest series ever made.

     But execution falls short, as it has continuously done over the season. Things are too easy, and leaps are made without explanation. Jim can run faster than the explosion destroying the Hub? Really? It's understandable that Terra Nova, being in part a family drama, doesn't want to lose its patriarch, but his mission is a suicide one. It would have been far more interesting to have Jim trapped in the future next season, seeking a way home. Or anyone in Jim's place, for that matter. Also, Jim just pretends he is confused wandering outside of the compound's walls, and the soldiers take him home? And he travels to a packed bar after curfew, where occupiers and colonists alike are drinking, and no one gets in trouble?

     The thing is, though, Terra Nova does know how to deliver a killer action sequence. And it also can tug a few heart strings. Credit should be given to Washington's (Simone Kessell) heroic sacrifice, made all the more moving as she struggles with the guilt of surrending Terra Nova to save innocent lives. In "Occupation" and "Resistance," she is a complex character with good motivations and a compelling story. Which saves the season finale from being a total bust. It's also hard not to get excited when the various members of the colony, who don't always get along, come together to fight back, even as the scenes lean a bit towards the cheesy.

     In a similar vein, Lang delivers a fantastic performance, even as the story between Taylor father and soon veers between unrealistic and ridiculous. Lucas is single-minded and evil, rather than layered, making their confrontation silly. But Lang still manages to evoke some strong emotion at his son's betrayal and death, and that says much about his acting skills.

     Dinosaur sightings are light, especially in the first half, but then, that's not really what Terra Nova is about. More disappointing is not seeing the colony fall, only hearing about it from Jim's perspective, as he slept through the whole thing. However, this is likely because of budget concerns, and because "Resistance" later gives a massive explosion and dinosaur chase, that kind of makes up for the skimping earlier.

     Does Terra Nova deserve a second season? Well, people will be upset if the ship's bow isn't explained. But it's hard to argue for more installments when, despite some wonderful moments and great special effects, the stories and dialogue just are not up to snuff. There are plenty of better shows that have been cancelled quicker. The deciding factor will likely be ratings, which have been good, but not great, given the massive budget of the series. Word may not be handed down for months, and there's nothing to do but wait and see.

     If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter!

     Catch up with streaming episodes of Terra Nova.